SkyscraperCity Forum banner

OAKLAND - RingCentral Coliseum (63,132)

222703 Views 726 Replies 97 Participants Last post by  pesto

Oakland Raiders

3x Champion:
1976, 1980, 1983


Oakland Athletics

9x Champion:
1910, 1911, 1913, 1929, 1930,
1972, 1973, 1974, 1989

Before the addition of "Mt. Davis" this was a much more beautiful ballpark
See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: 2
1 - 20 of 727 Posts
The Coliseum needs to be replaced. That's all I can say about this venue.
I don't know if I'm in the minority or majority on this, but I think it would be better for the stadium to match Mt. Davis. Why not? It was put there JUST for football in the first place...
Problem with Mt. Davis is its old now. It would have to be renovated so as all the top of the line amenities would be offered. The club section is nice, but not up to the new standard. Also, the bottom half of the stand is temporary. All the bleachers are wheeled in from outside of the stadium to accommodate baseball. A lot of money would have to be spent to rebuild the part of the stadium that is already in place for football.

The most important reason to build somewhere else is the location itself. Its one of the the worst possible locations in the city. Oakland isn't actually that bad of a town (I personally like the city). There are many beautiful neighborhoods, and business districts that are able to attract a lot of foot traffic and business. Unfortunately the coliseum complex is smack dab in the hood, with no local business or eateries for the public to enjoy before or after a game. You simply drive to the stadium, or take BART, and drive or ride back. The neighborhood get seriously sketchy when the sun sets, and to be honest, I wouldn't hang out there during the day either. Downtown, Jack London Square, North Oakland or another area would serve the team and fans much better. They say they are eying property near the coliseum, and I hope its on the western side of 880 (the current stadium is east of 880). That neighborhood is much better with many existing business fans can peruse before and after Raiders games. The new park would also probably spurn many more.
See less See more
You then leave Oracle isolated and in weaker position to counter-offer the Warriors. Or do you assume that is a lost cause?
I think it is. It may not be 2017, but the Warriors will be in SF eventually. Its where the owners want to be, and Oakland isn't putting up a fight.

Oracle will live on, and perhaps the Raiders and A's leaving could have a silver lining. The arena will host concerts, monster trucks, motocross, and all the other typical events without the Warriors. Plus, a minor league hockey team, arena football team or something could come around and fill some dates (maybe the Bulls cross the bay the other way). I'm hoping a developer sees some potential, and builds mix use development around the arena. Make it an arena village, that could give way to potential development around the complex. Something like the Nassau Veterans Coliseum is looking at.
See less See more
Just thinking out loud, and as a Raiders fan who doesn't want to see them go, but I wonder if Davis has some backup plans that don't involve LA. I know LA is the likely destination, but if Davis truly wants to stay in the Bay, (and I think he legitimately does), he has some options.

If the Rams move back, it appears they will be doing it in their own building, sidestepping Farmers. That project has made it clear in the past they want two teams for the project to proceed, and if the Rams execute their move, I don't see three teams occupying LA. The Rams could conceivably take in a stadium mate, but they would control the revenue. I have a feeling Davis wants to control the revenue wherever he ends up, another reason he'd like to stay in the Bay.

Option one would be Candlestick. SF is pissed at the Niners for bolting, and while they've made a plan for the park's demolition, the Raiders could swoop in for a short term stint while they worked out a long term solution on the other side of the bay. Raiders played in SF before. Not the greatest stadium, but it's not falling apart to the extent the Coliseum is.

Option two, AT&T Park. Insanely unlikely (like all the plans I have here) but a short term revenue stream for the Giants and San Francisco. And another opportunity for the city to stick it to the 49ers. Maybe in playing the spite card too hard, but I think its at least semi feasible. Can't imagine the Giants would be happy with the field conditions though.

Option three, a temporary stadium. It was discussed in the soccer stadium thread, but Sacto's stadium is being built in a matter of months and doesn't have to undergo a lengthy or expensive EIS because its temporary. I believe it is entirely possible to erect a 50,000 seat temporary park (predominantly bench seating), with significant investment in the locker rooms and luxury suite space. It wouldn't be the best stadium in the world, but it would be football only, so no dirt diamond, and most importantly, no leaking sewage into the locker rooms. Temporary facilities have come a long way, and I'm sure they could slap a butt load of lipstick on that pig to make it presentable. The main focus of this option would be the temporary part, with a long term solution being worked on vigorously, but not desperately.

Option 4 would be using existing college facilities. Cal is hurting bad after the Memorial renovation. Could use the extra cash, but access and parking are an f'ing nightmare. Stanford Stadium is one of the finest venues I've ever been too, and would suit an NFL team perfectly (temporarily anyway).

All pipe dreams, but like I said, thinking out loud. I don't want to see my Raiders leave, but I also understand they cannot stay in the Coliseum, and Oakland is apparently incapable of getting a deal together. LA seems to be having as hard a time getting their stuff together, but no doubt LA lingers in the back of every Raiders fan's mind. I don't really have much hope, but maybe the impending ultimatum gets the gears moving and a deal done or close. Crazier things have happened.
See less See more
^^None of those sound feasible for a variety of reasons (lack of premium seating, capacity etc), but the one option that still makes sense to me is rebuilding the Coliseum; If they were to keep Mt. Davis with a rebuilt lower bowl containing new club seating it already has enough suites for the Raiders going forward. Then the other three sides could be rebuilt in a much simpler manner, without any suites or club seats bringing the cost way down. So if they rebuilt the lower portion of Mt. Davis with some suites and a field club, converted half of the top suite level into a new press box and did a simple two level stand the rest of the way (with a really big single concourse near street level to eliminate costly elevators/escalators) around you'd end up with about 60-62,000 seats, 7,000 club seats and about 88 suites. That sounds pretty functional and way cheaper than the new stadium options being thrown around. I know it's not as sexy as a new stadium, and the location isn't exactly scenic at the moment but it seems practical, at least to me.
I'm guessing they've tossed this idea around already, but I think it would be so costly, they might as well build a whole new one. Mt. Davis only spans the east sideline, and they would probably have to rebuild the lower section, though it wouldn't be totally necessary. But, it would at least keep the costs down a little I suppose. Especially if they can design a cheaper alternative for the remaining 3 sides.
See less See more
Lew Wolff is considering building a temporary venue for the A's if they can't agree to a longer term lease deal with the Coliseum. They talk about it being in San Jose, next to the new Quakes Stadium (Quakes owned by Wolff), on the land designated for mixed use development. Would the stadium being temporary be able to bypass the Giants so called "territorial rights", or are San Jose and Wolff just banking on winning the lawsuit against the MLB? Wolff has consulted with 360 about designing a temporary home. Interestingly, San Jose Municipal Stadium has been looked at as a possible site for the A's on a temporary basis, though its only 4,000+ seats and extremely limited on expansion space. Is Lew trying to pull an MLB version of the Quakes? Sacramento news outlets reported Raley's Field is a potential temporary landing spot for the A's while they work out their long term stadium issues in the Bay. Article mentions Wolff has no intention of leaving the Bay Area market.

My own personal theory, but the article does mention the Coliseum City project is still being actively pursued, which leads me to wonder if maybe the Raiders are looking at a serious bid to rebuild the Coliseum, which will leave the A's homeless, and unable to sign a multi year deal past the 2015 season.

Here's an article on the temporary stadium:
See less See more
Has Wolff ever hinted that he'd sell the team? Really like the above proposal.
Wolff won't sell. He's made lots of comments here or there about having no interest in releasing control of the club. He's going to push the San Jose issue until he gets his ruling, or MLB forces him to stop (if they can do that???). I've actually got to meet him several times, and he's a really nice guy, and one of the topics I got to ask was the A's to SJ deal. He gave me what I would call a fairly PRish answer, but he made it pretty clear he was in it for the long haul, and the South Bay was where the A's would call home (obviously, not on those words). A lot of the A's front office people I've been able to chit chat with have further reinforced this point, and gone even further basically stating he is committed to seeing the A's secure the deal they want (South Bay) and he is willing to put his wallet behind it.

However, I can also see him eventually tiring of the fight, and wasting resources on a cause that sees no significant progress. But if he's truly in the fight till the end, it'll be interesting.
See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: 1
Am I totally off based thinking this deal signals at least a little hope the Coliseum City plan may have some legs? I read Davis has been talking to Oakland and the development firm recently. 10 years in the league's crappiest park seems a tad odd unless there is a plan in the horizon for a major overhaul. Especially when Wolff was seemingly desperate to relocate as soon as he possibly could.
See less See more
I don't know if you are off base, but there are a lot of misconceptions floating around here. For example: * The ten year lease is not a done deal. Many are critical of the deal, and the board was unable to approve it, due to four of the eight voting members not showing up last week. * Coliseum City has a lot of problems right now. Only 200 of the 800 acres involved are actually controlled by either the City of Oakland or Alameda County. Plus, there is a big question about the unpaid bonds issued to build Mt. Davis. * Wolff is going forward with the 10 year deal simply because his team needs a place to play while things are getting worked out. There are several out clauses, some of which do not involved the A's paying a dime. * San Jose is still Wolff's preferred choice to build. They have the land, they have the design, they have the money and they still have the naming rights deal with Cisco Systems, but since the City of San Jose is still involved in the big lawsuit against MLB, there is nothing that Wolff or the A's can say or do right now about SJ. There are still billions of dollars at stake here, and nothing has been settled yet.
Thanks for the insight.

If the deal is finally cemented, I wonder how hard it would be for Wolff to break if San Jose wins its appeal, and the territorial rights hurdle is finally removed.

If they do stay at the coliseum, I have always thought the stadium could undergo a MAJOR renovation to make it somewhat decent. If they could remove mount Davis, redo the concourse and give the outside a significant facelift, it wouldn't be a bad ballpark. I'm thinking something along the lines of what the Royals did to Kauffman.
See less See more
Lipstick is a whole lot nicer than mud and gunk
As the Raiders up their demand for a new home, Oakland is going to have to start seriously working towards the Coliseum City plan. I've always believed if the Coliseum could have underwent a massive renovation, it would be a great baseball venue, but it will never be suitable for an NFL franchise in this day and age.

There is plenty of land on the site to accommodate an extra stadium, but it seems like the developer wants no part of keeping the existing structure. I think the A's would be flexible, but it's far cheaper for them to invest in a renovation and tell the Raiders happy trails. I think the city and county are finally going to be given the squeeze by Davis an the Raiders, but I wonder if they (Raiders) have enough push to make it happen. I've read and heard various pundits claim the NFL doesn't want the team to move, and may try to pursue a ground share with the 49ers, for at least a temporary solution.

I'm not an expert on the Raiders financials, but it almost seems like Davis is in a Maloof type situation, where he doesn't have the money to properly fund any potential project, and will look for a municipality or third party to take on the financial burden. I'm not sure the NFL would be as patient as the NBA was, but I could be totally off base.

As a Raiders fan, I'm biased and prone to looking at any sign of hope, but I think we are about to witness a great deal of movement on the Coliseum front. Enough at least to convince the Raiders to give the parties involved more time to figure the situation out. I know the San Antonio story has little to no legs, but Raiders fans are starting to panic (those I know and work with anyway) and pressure seems to finally start to hit the local governments. I can see Goodell working out a Levi share situation to keep the team put to give Oakland authorities time to sort it out. I know the LA move is still a very real possibility, but I hope we end up seeing the Rams and Chargers return there instead (sorry to the fans of those teams).

Anyway, just a fan rant that has been gnawing at me lately. And one more thing; its disappointing the Coliseum is in such horrible shape, when much older ballparks (Wrigley, Fenway) are in great shape. It's just not acceptable.
See less See more
Interesting tidbit I found this morning:

Seems Coliseum City has found a new investor, and has had conversation with the Raiders, and not A's.
Coliseum City investor named: Floyd Kephart, Chairman of the Renaissance companies, a hedge-fund consulting company.

As a Nor-Cal Raiders fan, I hope it actually leads to something, but I'm not holding my breath.
While it's not news about the Coliseum, the Raiders are making upgrades to their team facility in Alameda. It, like their home stadium, is badly behind the times.

Some players in Oakland apparently starting to panic after the plans for a shared Raiders-Chargers venue hits the news.

Article basically goes over Davis' desire for any potential Oakland stadium to be smaller (55,000).
With the A's basically washing their hands of the Coliseum City proposal, it seems to me it has become a whole lot cheaper. Davis asking for a small stadium further lowers funding and logistics. I still fully expect to have to swallow my pride and readjust to my Raiders being back down south, but with all the recent administrative changes that the project has gone through recently coupled with projected lower costs, it makes me wonder if this project is perhaps not yet fully dead.
See less See more

Not sure if Kephart taking his sweet time is a good thing or bad thing, but the mayor having to distance herself from his comments over the NFL and Carson isn't ringing too well.

Meh, my hope of rooting for an Oakland Raiders in future years is slim to none anyways.
See less See more
1 - 20 of 727 Posts